Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Quantum Cognition Machine Learning for Forecasting Chromosomal Instability

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A quantum-inspired machine learning model predicts chromosomal instability in circulating tumor cells from microscopy features more accurately than ten classical methods.

desk verdict A legitimate first application of QCML to CTC morphology with a sound POVM extension, but the cell-level cross-validation does not support the new-patient generalization claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03199 v2 pith:DDRR3TA3 submitted 2025-06-02 q-bio.QM cs.LGquant-ph

Giuseppe Di Caro , Vahagn Kirakosyan , Alexander G. Abanov , Jerome R. Busemeyer , Luca Candelori , Nadine Hartmann , Ernest T. Lam , Kharen Musaelian
show 6 more authors
Ryan Samson Harold Steinacker Dario Villani Martin T. Wells Richard J. Wenstrup Mengjia Xu
This is my paper
classification q-bio.QMcs.LGquant-ph
keywords QuantumCognitionMachineLearningCirculatingtumorcellsChromosomalinstabilityLiquidbiopsypLSTpredictionPositiveOperator-ValuedMeasureMetastaticbreastcancerHigh-dimensionallow-sample-sizeclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that Quantum Cognition Machine Learning (QCML) predicts which circulating tumor cells carry chromosomal instability — measured by large-scale state transitions (LST) — from microscopy-derived morphology better than ten classical machine-learning baselines. In a dataset of 227 CTCs from 73 metastatic breast cancer patients, QCML reports the highest out-of-sample specificity (57%) with sensitivity 84% and balanced accuracy 70%, and its POVM variant reports the highest ROC AUC (0.763). If correct, the finding matters because morphology-only prediction could flag high-metastatic-potential CTCs in hours rather than after whole-genome sequencing. The paper also argues that QCML's learned feature importance aligns with known biology of unstable cells, such as larger cells, fractal nuclear complexity, and abnormal cytoplasmic DAPI signal.

What carries the argument

The central object is the error Hamiltonian $H(x_t) = \frac{1}{2}\sum_k (A_k - x_{t,k} I)^2$, where each $A_k$ is a learned Hermitian feature observable on an $N$-dimensional Hilbert space and $x_t$ is a cell's feature vector. The map from data to quantum state is the ground state $|\psi_t\rangle$ of this Hamiltonian, and a forecast observable $B$ gives predictions through $\hat{y}_t = \langle \psi_t | B | \psi_t \rangle$. The QCML POVM extension replaces point forecasts with a full probability density $p(y) = \langle \psi | \hat{Y}^\dagger(y) \hat{Y}(y) | \psi \rangle$, with the operators $\hat{Y}(y)$ parameterized by Legendre polynomials so the density integrates to one. This representation carries the argument: the parameter count grows linearly with the number of features, and the ground-state map performs an intrinsic dimensionality reduction, which the paper claims is why QCML generalizes in a high-dimensional, low-sample-size regime.

What would settle it

Run the same 5-fold cross-validation comparison with all cells from each patient held out together (patient-level splits), or on an independent cohort of CTCs; if QCML's balanced-accuracy and ROC-AUC advantages shrink or vanish, the claimed generalization advantage is an artifact of shared-patient overlap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that encoding each cell's 112 morphology, intensity, and texture features as a quantum state — the ground state of an error Hamiltonian built from learned observables — yields better out-of-sample classification of LST status than support vector machines, neural networks, random forests, XGBoost, and other classical models. In verification folds QCML reached balanced accuracy 70% ± 8%, sensitivity 84% ± 9%, and specificity 57% ± 10%, and QCML POVM reached ROC AUC 0.763, the best among all models tested. The authors interpret the smaller gap between in-sample and out-of-sample performance as evidence that the quantum-state representation controls overfitting without curated feature selection. They further claim that the model's feature importance ranking recovers biologically plausible correlates of chromosomal instability, including cell size, fractal nuclear shape, cross-channel colocalization, and DAPI localization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that splitting individual cells, not patients, into training and test sets measures how well the model generalizes to new patients; cells from the same patient share biological and technical factors that can inflate apparent out-of-sample performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Morphology-only pLST prediction could cut liquid-biopsy turnaround time from sequencing-scale workflows to image-analysis-scale workflows, if the reported performance holds in validation.
  • QCML's gradient-based feature ranking yields a testable biological hypothesis: unstable CTCs are larger, have more fractal nuclei, and show disrupted DAPI localization and cross-channel texture alignment.
  • QCML POVM's full predictive densities allow clinicians to choose operating points on specificity/sensitivity and report quantiles rather than single point predictions.
  • A smaller in-sample/out-of-sample performance gap than classical models suggests QCML may generalize in other high-dimensional, low-sample-size biomedical datasets without curated feature selection.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: Because the reported cross-validation splits cells rather than patients, the paper's claim of generalization to new patients is not yet fully tested; a patient-grouped split or independent cohort would be the decisive check.
  • Editorial extension: The QCML distance defined by quantum fidelity is a supervised similarity measure; a natural next step the paper does not take is to use it for patient-level clustering or survival analysis in metastatic breast cancer.
  • Editorial extension: The paper mentions quantum-assisted feature mapping from raw pixels as future work; that same framework could be tested against the hand-crafted 112-feature pipeline used here.
  • Editorial extension: The POVM densities should be checked for calibration, since threshold-based clinical use requires trustworthy probability forecasts; the paper does not report calibration curves.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies a quantum-inspired machine learning framework, QCML, to predict chromosomal instability (LST status) from 112 morphological and intensity features extracted from circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in metastatic breast cancer patients. The authors compare QCML regression and a new QCML POVM classification extension against 10 classical machine learning baselines using 5-fold cross-validation with 5 repeats, reporting that QCML achieves the highest out-of-sample balanced accuracy (70%) and ROC AUC (0.763) among all models. They also present a gradient-based feature importance analysis and a QCML-distance visualization. The paper concludes that QCML is a promising tool for liquid-biopsy-based real-time detection of chromosomal instability.

Significance. If the reported superiority were statistically reliable and generalizable to new patients, the paper would make a valuable contribution to high-dimensional, low-sample-size biomedical classification and to the emerging field of quantum-inspired machine learning. The manuscript is clearly written, the biological feature-importance findings are plausible and connect to known mechanisms of chromosomal instability, and the QCML POVM extension is described in detail. However, the central empirical claim rests on an evaluation protocol that does not establish generalization to unseen patients, and the reported differences are not supported by statistical testing. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Tables 1 and 2] The cross-validation procedure treats each CTC as an independent observation and splits cells, not patients. The dataset contains 227 CTCs from 73 patients (mean 3.25 cells per patient), so the same patient's cells appear in both the training and test folds. Cells from the same patient share biological state, staining batch, imaging conditions, and other technical factors, and are therefore not independent. The abstract and Discussion frame the method as enabling real-time detection for patients, so the intended use case is prediction on new patients. The current 'case-agnostic' protocol measures performance on cells with same-patient cells in the training set, which can inflate out-of-sample metrics and does not establish generalization to new patients. The authors must re-run the comparison using patient-level or group-aware cross-validation and report whether the QCML advantage persists. Without this, the headline superiority claim is not supported.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The reported performance differences lack statistical support. In Table 1, QCML's out-of-sample balanced accuracy is 70% ± 8% versus 68% ± 7% for the SVM Gaussian kernel, a difference well within the reported standard deviations. In Table 2, the QCML POVM ROC AUC of 0.763 versus XGBoost's 0.747 is presented without confidence intervals, per-fold values, or a significance test (e.g., DeLong test, bootstrap, or paired test across folds). The claim that QCML 'outperforms' the classical baselines requires formal uncertainty quantification and hypothesis tests, especially given the small absolute differences and overlapping error bars.
  3. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The claim that QCML shows a 'smaller disconnect between in-sample and out-of-sample performance' is made qualitatively. For balanced accuracy, the in-sample to out-of-sample drop for QCML is 78% to 70%, while for SVM Gaussian it is 74% to 68%; these gaps are similar in magnitude. If the authors wish to argue that QCML generalizes better, they should quantify the generalization gap across folds and test whether the difference is statistically significant, rather than relying on visual or qualitative comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'LST¿12' appears to be a typographical error for 'LST > 12'; please correct it.
  2. [Section 2.3, Equation (2)] The description of the 'gradient-free' loss reweighting is unclear. The text says that adjusting each loss component by the corresponding gradient-free loss 'forces each component's loss to be equal to 1,' but in practice the gradient is scaled by the detached loss value, so the effective weighting is not necessarily equal. Please clarify the intended effect and the implementation.
  3. [Figure 4] The caption states that at lower specificity QCML POVM outperforms both XGBoost and Random Forest, but this is a qualitative claim based on visual inspection. Please provide the actual ROC curves with confidence bands or numerical comparisons at selected operating points.
  4. [Section 3.4, Figure 6] The feature importance table is difficult to read in the current formatting. Please present it as a proper table with clear column headers, and ensure the feature names and importance scores are legible.
  5. [Abstract and throughout] The phrase 'out of sample' should be hyphenated as 'out-of-sample' for consistency with standard terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the QCML performance claims are empirical benchmarks against external baselines, not derivations from fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that QCML and QCML POVM outperform ten classical baselines for morphology-predicted LST status—is an empirical benchmark computed on held-out folds (Section 2.2, Tables 1-2) against external baselines such as SVM, XGBoost, and Random Forest. The QCML construction in Sections 2.3-2.4 is a mathematical encoding: data points are mapped to ground states of an error Hamiltonian, and the POVM density is normalized by construction via Legendre orthonormality; neither step defines the target y in terms of the model output, and the forecasts are scored against genomically determined LST ground truth. The main theoretical motivation cites the authors' own prior work ([25-28]) for properties such as robustness and generalization, but the reported performance does not reduce to those citations; it is independently evaluated on held-out cells. The paper itself flags its preliminary status ('Future studies will be required to validate these findings', Discussion). The cell-level 'case-agnostic' cross-validation is a generalization-validity limitation (same-patient cells can appear in both train and test), but this is a methodological concern about what 'out-of-sample' means, not a circular derivation: the comparison is still computed on data not used to fit each fold. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely renamed. I find no circular step that reduces a claimed prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The reported predictive performance depends on several hand-set hyperparameters (Hilbert space dimension, positive-class weight, POVM truncation, classification threshold) and on the LST cutoff from prior work. The model itself is a mathematical construction built on top of prior self-cited QCML work; no new physical entity is proposed.

free parameters (5)
  • Hilbert space dimension N = not reported
    QCML hyperparameter tuned through cross-validation (Section 2.3); no values or range are given in the paper.
  • positive class weight w_p = 0.5
    Set to prioritize specificity and reduce false positives (Section 2.3).
  • POVM truncation parameter K = not reported
    Number of Legendre terms in the QCML POVM expansion (Section 2.4); no value is reported.
  • classification probability threshold = 0.6
    Threshold used for the classification results in Table 2, selected based on Youden/Perkins references (Section 3.3).
  • LST threshold theta_LST = 12
    Cutoff defining LST+ status, taken from prior analytical validation [4] and used as the binary label (Section 2.3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The ground state of the error Hamiltonian H(x_t) exists and the non-differentiable optimization converges.
    QCML training relies on this for every data point (Section 2.3); no proof or robustness analysis is given.
  • standard math Born rule and POVM formalism are valid for the constructed operators.
    Used to define probabilities and the continuous POVM (Section 2.4).
  • standard math Legendre polynomials provide an orthonormal basis on [-1,1] and the completeness relation holds.
    Basis for the POVM parametrization and normalization (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption Morphology features carry information about genomic LST status.
    Background from prior work [3]; if false, no model can succeed.
  • domain assumption The LST>12 cutoff defines a clinically meaningful binary target.
    Taken from prior analytical validation [4]; paper does not re-derive or justify it in this dataset.
  • domain assumption Cells can be treated as independent observations in cross-validation.
    The case-agnostic approach (Section 2.2) ignores patient grouping; multiple CTCs per patient are not block-split.
invented entities (1)
  • QCML POVM (Positive Operator-Valued Measure forecasting extension)
    purpose: Extends QCML to output probability densities for continuous targets, used for LST probability forecasts.
    A mathematical construction introduced in this paper; it is not a physical entity and has no external falsifiable prediction beyond the reported dataset performance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Cognition Machine Learning for Forecasting Chromosomal Instability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DDRR3TA3

@misc{pith2026250603199,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Cognition Machine Learning for Forecasting Chromosomal Instability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DDRR3TA3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03199}
}
read the original abstract

The accurate prediction of chromosomal instability from the morphology of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) enables real-time detection of CTCs with high metastatic potential in the context of liquid biopsy diagnostics. However, it presents a significant challenge due to the high dimensionality and complexity of single-cell digital pathology data. Here, we introduce the application of Quantum Cognition Machine Learning (QCML), a quantum-inspired computational framework, to estimate morphology-predicted chromosomal instability in CTCs from patients with metastatic breast cancer. QCML leverages quantum mechanical principles to represent data as state vectors in a Hilbert space, enabling context-aware feature modeling, dimensionality reduction, and enhanced generalization without requiring curated feature selection. QCML outperforms conventional machine learning methods when tested on out of sample verification CTCs, achieving higher accuracy in identifying predicted large-scale state transitions (pLST) status from CTC-derived morphology features. These preliminary findings support the application of QCML as a novel machine learning tool with superior performance in high-dimensional, low-sample-size biomedical contexts. QCML enables the simulation of cognition-like learning for the identification of biologically meaningful prediction of chromosomal instability from CTC morphology, offering a novel tool for CTC classification in liquid biopsy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03199 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of genomics-determined LST values across all cases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Count of CTCs with specific LST values. The bar plot comparison illustrates the number of CTCs ranked from left to right by increasing LST values. The bar plot at the top displays the LST values ground truth, which is the genomically determined LST per CTC, while the bottom plot shows the morphology-predicted LST values computed by QCML. The count of CTCs for the ground truth genomically determined LST follows the s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Linear correlation of cellular and nuclear morphology and protein in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ROC AUC curves for the top three performing models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: QCML POVM produces full probability distribution of LST for all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: QCML gradient-based feature importance. Left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Multi-dimensional scaling visualization based on a distance matrix of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Breast cancer, version 3.2022, nccn clinical practice guidelines in oncology,

    W. J. Gradishar et al., “Breast cancer, version 3.2022, nccn clinical practice guidelines in oncology,” J Natl Compr Canc Netw, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 691–722, 2022. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2022.0030 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35714673

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Recommen- dations for her2 testing in breast cancer,

    A. C. Wolff, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists, “Recommen- dations for her2 testing in breast cancer,” Arch Pathol Lab Med, vol. 138, no. 2, pp. 241–256, 2014. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2013-0953-SA

    work page doi:10.5858/arpa.2013-0953-sa 2014

  3. [3]

    J. D. Schonhoft et al., “Morphology-predicted large-scale transition number in circulating tumor cells iden- tifies a chromosomal instability biomarker associated with poor outcome in castration-resistant prostate cancer,” Cancer Res, vol. 80, no. 22, pp. 4892–4903, 2020. doi: 10 . 1158 / 0008 - 5472 . CAN - 20 - 1216. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncb...

    work page arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    A novel liquid biopsy assay for detection of erbb2 (her2) amplification in circulating tumor cells (ctcs),

    G. Di Caro et al., “A novel liquid biopsy assay for detection of erbb2 (her2) amplification in circulating tumor cells (ctcs),” J Circ Biomark, vol. 13, pp. 27–35, 2024. doi: 10.33393/jcb.2024.3046

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Low-pass whole genome sequencing of circulating tumor cells to evaluate chromosomal instability in triple-negative breast cancer,

    S. Di Cosimo et al., “Low-pass whole genome sequencing of circulating tumor cells to evaluate chromosomal instability in triple-negative breast cancer,” Sci Rep, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 20 479, 2024.doi: 10.1038/s41598- 024-71378-3. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39227622

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Chromosomal instability estimation based on sequencing,

    S. B. Greene and A. E. Dago, “Chromosomal instability estimation based on sequencing,” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 11, e0165089, 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165089

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165089 2016

  7. [7]

    Tumour heterogeneity: The key advantages of single-cell analysis,

    M. Tellez-Gabriel, B. Ory, F. Lamoureux, M. F. Heymann, and D. Heymann, “Tumour heterogeneity: The key advantages of single-cell analysis,” Int J Mol Sci, vol. 17, no. 12, 2016. doi: 10.3390/ijms17122142. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27999407

    work page arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Single-cell circulating tumor cell analysis reveals genomic instability as a distinctive feature of aggressive prostate cancer,

    P. D. Malihi et al., “Single-cell circulating tumor cell analysis reveals genomic instability as a distinctive feature of aggressive prostate cancer,”Clin Cancer Res, vol. 26, no. 15, pp. 4143–4153, 2020.doi: 10.1158/ 1078-0432.CCR-19-4100 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32341031

    work page arXiv 2020

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Circulating tumor cell chromosomal instability and neuroendocrine phenotype by immunomorphology and poor outcomes in men with mcrpc treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide,

    L. C. Brown et al., “Circulating tumor cell chromosomal instability and neuroendocrine phenotype by immunomorphology and poor outcomes in men with mcrpc treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide,” Clin Cancer Res, vol. 27, no. 14, pp. 4077–4088, 2021. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Genomic instability–an evolving hallmark of cancer,

    S. Negrini, V. G. Gorgoulis, and T. D. Halazonetis, “Genomic instability–an evolving hallmark of cancer,” Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 220–8, 2010. doi: 10 . 1038 / nrm2858. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20177397

    2010

  3. [11]

    Determinants and clinical implications of chromoso- mal instability in cancer,

    L. Sansregret, B. Vanhaesebroeck, and C. Swanton, “Determinants and clinical implications of chromoso- mal instability in cancer,” Nat Rev Clin Oncol, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 139–150, 2018.doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc. 2017.198. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29297505

    2018

  4. [12]

    Clonal heterogeneity and tumor evolution: Past, present, and the future,

    N. McGranahan and C. Swanton, “Clonal heterogeneity and tumor evolution: Past, present, and the future,” Cell, vol. 168, no. 4, pp. 613–628, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.018. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28187284

    2017

  5. [13]

    Mechanisms of genomic instability in breast cancer,

    P. H. G. Duijf, D. Nanayakkara, K. Nones, S. Srihari, M. Kalimutho, and K. K. Khanna, “Mechanisms of genomic instability in breast cancer,” Trends Mol Med, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 595–611, 2019. doi: 10.1016/ j.molmed.2019.04.004. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Hallmarks of cancer: New dimensions,

    D. Hanahan, “Hallmarks of cancer: New dimensions,” Cancer Discov, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 31–46, 2022. doi: 10.1158/2159- 8290.CD- 21- 1059. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 35022204. 12

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Targeting cancers with chromosome instability,

    A. Eccleston, “Targeting cancers with chromosome instability,” Nat Rev Drug Discov, vol. 21, no. 8, p. 556, 2022. doi: 10.1038/d41573- 022- 00111- 4. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/35778502

    2022

  8. [16]

    A pan-cancer compendium of chromosomal instability,

    R. M. Drews et al., “A pan-cancer compendium of chromosomal instability,” Nature, vol. 606, no. 7916, pp. 976–983, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04789-9 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/35705807

    2022

  9. [17]

    Oncogenic signaling pathways in the cancer genome atlas,

    F. Sanchez-Vega et al., “Oncogenic signaling pathways in the cancer genome atlas,” Cell, vol. 173, no. 2, 321–337 e10, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.035 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/29625050

    2018

  10. [18]

    Mechanisms and consequences of cancer genome instability: Lessons from genome sequencing studies,

    J. K. Lee, Y. L. Choi, M. Kwon, and P. J. Park, “Mechanisms and consequences of cancer genome instability: Lessons from genome sequencing studies,” Annu Rev Pathol, vol. 11, pp. 283–312, 2016. doi: 10.1146/annurev- pathol- 012615- 044446. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi....

    2016

  11. [19]

    The role of aneuploidy in cancer evolution,

    L. Sansregret and C. Swanton, “The role of aneuploidy in cancer evolution,” Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med, vol. 7, no. 1, 2017. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a028373 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28049655

    2017

  12. [20]

    Toward clinical implementation of next-generation sequencing- based genetic testing in rare diseases: Where are we?

    Z. Liu, L. Zhu, R. Roberts, and W. Tong, “Toward clinical implementation of next-generation sequencing- based genetic testing in rare diseases: Where are we?”Trends Genet, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 852–867, 2019.doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2019.08.006. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi....

    2019

  13. [21]

    Machine learning in cell biology - teaching computers to recognize phenotypes,

    C. Sommer and D. W. Gerlich, “Machine learning in cell biology - teaching computers to recognize phenotypes,” J Cell Sci, vol. 126, no. Pt 24, pp. 5529–39, 2013. doi: 10.1242/jcs.123604 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24259662

    2013

  14. [22]

    The trifecta of single-cell, systems-biology, and machine-learning approaches,

    T. M. Weiskittel et al., “The trifecta of single-cell, systems-biology, and machine-learning approaches,” Genes (Basel), vol. 12, no. 7, 2021. doi: 10.3390/genes12071098 . [Online]. Available: https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34356114

    2021

  15. [23]

    Translating cancer genomics into precision medicine with artificial intelligence: Applications, challenges and future perspectives,

    J. Xu et al., “Translating cancer genomics into precision medicine with artificial intelligence: Applications, challenges and future perspectives,” Hum Genet, vol. 138, no. 2, pp. 109–124, 2019.doi: 10.1007/s00439- 019-01970-5. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Informing immunotherapy with multi-omics driven machine learning,

    Y. Li, X. Wu, D. Fang, and Y. Luo, “Informing immunotherapy with multi-omics driven machine learning,” NPJ Digit Med, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 67, 2024. doi: 10 . 1038 / s41746 - 024 - 01043 - 6. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38486092

    2024

  17. [25]

    Candelori et al., Robust estimation of the intrinsic dimension of data sets with quantum cognition machine learning, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12805, 2024

    L. Candelori et al., Robust estimation of the intrinsic dimension of data sets with quantum cognition machine learning, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12805, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Musaelian et al., Quantum cognition machine learning: AI Needs Quantum, https://www.qognitive

    K. Musaelian et al., Quantum cognition machine learning: AI Needs Quantum, https://www.qognitive. io/papers/QCML - Qognitive, Inc.pdf, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Samson et al., Quantum cognition machine learning: Financial forecasting, Risk.net, 2024

    R. Samson et al., Quantum cognition machine learning: Financial forecasting, Risk.net, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Rosaler et al., Supervised similarity for high-yield corporate bonds with quantum cognition machine learning, 2025

    J. Rosaler et al., Supervised similarity for high-yield corporate bonds with quantum cognition machine learning, 2025. arXiv: 2502.01495 [q-fin.ST]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502. 01495

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    H. C. Steinacker, Quantum Geometry, Matrix Theory, and Gravity. Cambridge University Press, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Fully automated ctc detection, segmentation and classification for multi-channel if imaging,

    E. Schwab et al., “Fully automated ctc detection, segmentation and classification for multi-channel if imaging,” in Medical Optical Imaging and Virtual Microscopy Image Analysis, 2025, pp. 55–65

    2025

  23. [31]

    [Online]

    Human genome assembly grch38, Genome Reference Consortium, 2013. [Online]. Available: https : / / www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/datasets/genome/GCF_000001405.26/

    2013

  24. [32]

    Visual pattern recognition by moment invariants,

    H. Ming-Kuei, “Visual pattern recognition by moment invariants,” IRE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 179–187, 1962. doi: 10.1109/TIT.1962.1057692

    1962

  25. [33]

    Laws, Textured Image Segmentation

    K. Laws, Textured Image Segmentation. University of Southern California, 1980. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id=GxvLnQEACAAJ

    1980

  26. [34]

    Quantum cognition,

    E. M. Pothos and J. R. Busemeyer, “Quantum cognition,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 749–778, 2022. doi: 10.1146/annurev- psych- 033020- 123501. eprint: 10.1146/annurev- psych- 033020-123501. [Online]. Available: 10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-123501

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, 2000. 13

    2000

  28. [36]

    Weber and G

    H.-J. Weber and G. B. Arfken, Mathematical methods for physicists. Elsevier Academic Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005, vol. 148

    2005

  29. [37]

    Ai powered quantification of nuclear morphology in cancers enables prediction of genome instability and prognosis,

    J. Abel, S. Jain, D. Rajan, H. Padigela, K. Leidal, et al., “Ai powered quantification of nuclear morphology in cancers enables prediction of genome instability and prognosis,” NPJ Precision Oncology, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 134, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41698- 024- 00623- 9. [Online]. A...

    2024

  30. [38]

    The nuclear envelope environment and its cancer connec- tions,

    K. H. Chow, R. E. Factor, and K. S. Ullman, “The nuclear envelope environment and its cancer connec- tions,” Nat Rev Cancer, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 196–209, 2012. doi: 10.1038/nrc3219 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22337151

    2012

  31. [39]

    Blue intensity matters for cell cycle profiling in fluorescence dapi-stained images,

    A. Ferro, T. Mestre, P. Carneiro, I. Sahumbaiev, R. Seruca, and J. M. Sanches, “Blue intensity matters for cell cycle profiling in fluorescence dapi-stained images,” Lab Invest, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 615–625, 2017. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.2017.13. [Online]. Available: https://www...

    2017

  32. [40]

    Sites of chromosomal instability in the context of nuclear architecture and function,

    C. Pentzold, M. Kokal, S. Pentzold, and A. Weise, “Sites of chromosomal instability in the context of nuclear architecture and function,” Cell Mol Life Sci, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 2095–2103, 2021. doi: 10.1007/ s00018-020-03698-2 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

    2021

  33. [41]

    Nuclear envelope rupture drives genome instability in cancer,

    S. Lim, R. J. Quinton, and N. J. Ganem, “Nuclear envelope rupture drives genome instability in cancer,” Mol Biol Cell, vol. 27, no. 21, pp. 3210–3213, 2016. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E16-02-0098. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27799497

    2016

  34. [42]

    A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on feature distributions,

    T. Ojala, M. Pietik¨ ainen, and D. Harwood, “A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on feature distributions,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 29, pp. 51–59, 1996

    1996

  35. [43]

    Index for rating diagnostic tests,

    W. J. Youden, “Index for rating diagnostic tests,” Cancer, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 32–35, 1950, issn: 1097-0142. doi: 10 . 1002 / 1097 - 0142(1950 ) 3 : 1<32 :: aid - cncr2820030106 > 3 . 0 . co ; 2 - 3. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1%3C32::AID-CN...

    1950 doi

  36. [44]

    The inconsistency of “optimal

    N. J. Perkins and E. F. Schisterman, “The inconsistency of “optimal” cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 163, no. 7, pp. 670–675, Jan. 2006, issn: 0002-9262. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj063...

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    Causes and consequences of micronuclei,

    K. Krupina, A. Goginashvili, and D. W. Cleveland, “Causes and consequences of micronuclei,” Curr Opin Cell Biol, vol. 70, pp. 91–99, 2021. doi: 10 . 1016 / j . ceb . 2021 . 01 . 004. [Online]. Available: https : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33610905

    2021

  38. [46]

    G2/m-phase checkpoint adaptation and micronuclei formation as mechanisms that contribute to genomic instability in human cells,

    D. Kalsbeek and R. M. Golsteyn, “G2/m-phase checkpoint adaptation and micronuclei formation as mechanisms that contribute to genomic instability in human cells,” Int J Mol Sci, vol. 18, no. 11, 2017. doi: 10.3390/ijms18112344. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

    2017

  39. [48]

    Comprehensive and integrated genomic characterization of adult soft tissue sarcomas,

    e. d. s. c. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Electronic address and N. Cancer Genome Atlas Research, “Comprehensive and integrated genomic characterization of adult soft tissue sarcomas,” Cell, vol. 171, no. 4, 950–965 e28, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.10.014 . [Online]...

    2017

  40. [49]

    Prognostic values of cancer associated macrophage-like cells (caml) enumeration in metastatic breast cancer,

    Z. Mu et al., “Prognostic values of cancer associated macrophage-like cells (caml) enumeration in metastatic breast cancer,” Breast Cancer Res Treat, vol. 165, no. 3, pp. 733–741, 2017. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017- 4372-8. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28687903

    2017

  41. [50]

    Blood-based biopsies- clinical utility beyond circulating tumor cells,

    C. M. Tang, P. Zhu, S. Li, O. V. Makarova, P. T. Amstutz, and D. L. Adams, “Blood-based biopsies- clinical utility beyond circulating tumor cells,” Cytometry A, vol. 93, no. 12, pp. 1246–1250, 2018. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.23573. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

    2018

  42. [51]

    The value of morphometry to classic prognostica- tors in breast cancer,

    J. P. Baak, H. Van Dop, P. H. Kurver, and J. Hermans, “The value of morphometry to classic prognostica- tors in breast cancer,” Cancer, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 374–82, 1985. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19850715)56: 2<374::aid- cncr2820560229> 3.0.co;2- 9. [Online]. Available: https://w...

    1985

  43. [52]

    Correlation of nuclear morphometry with progression of breast cancer,

    K. J. Pienta and D. S. Coffey, “Correlation of nuclear morphometry with progression of breast cancer,” Cancer, vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 2012–6, 1991. doi: 10 . 1002 / 1097 - 0142(19911101 ) 68 : 9<2012 :: aid - cncr2820680928>3.0.co;2-c. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni...

    2012

  44. [53]

    Nucleus, nuclear structure, and nuclear functions: Pathogenesis of nuclear abnormalities in cancer,

    A. Zimmermann, “Nucleus, nuclear structure, and nuclear functions: Pathogenesis of nuclear abnormalities in cancer,” in Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 3071–3087. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26956- 6_170. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26956-6_170 . 14

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    Challenges in circulating tumour cell research,

    C. Alix-Panabieres and K. Pantel, “Challenges in circulating tumour cell research,” Nat Rev Cancer, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 623–31, 2014. doi: 10.1038/nrc3820 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/25154812

    2014

  46. [55]

    A conduit to metastasis: Circulating tumor cell biology,

    D. S. Micalizzi, S. Maheswaran, and D. A. Haber, “A conduit to metastasis: Circulating tumor cell biology,” Genes Dev, vol. 31, no. 18, pp. 1827–1840, 2017. doi: 10 . 1101 / gad . 305805 . 117. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29051388

    2017

  47. [56]

    Biology, detection, and clinical implications of circulating tumor cells,

    S. A. Joosse, T. M. Gorges, and K. Pantel, “Biology, detection, and clinical implications of circulating tumor cells,” EMBO Mol Med, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2015. doi: 10.15252/emmm.201303698 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25398926

    2015

  48. [57]

    Building a two-way street between cell biology and machine learning,

    C. Uhler, “Building a two-way street between cell biology and machine learning,” Nat Cell Biol, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 13–14, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41556- 023- 01279- 6. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38228823

    2024

  49. [58]

    Machine learning for perturbational single-cell omics,

    Y. Ji, M. Lotfollahi, F. A. Wolf, and F. J. Theis, “Machine learning for perturbational single-cell omics,” Cell Syst, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 522–537, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2021.05.016 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34139164

    2021

  50. [59]

    Representation learning: A review and new perspectives,

    Y. Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent, “Representation learning: A review and new perspectives,” IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1798–828, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23787338

    2013

  51. [60]

    Pan-cancer computational histopathology reveals mutations, tumor composition and progno- sis,

    Y. Fu et al., “Pan-cancer computational histopathology reveals mutations, tumor composition and progno- sis,” Nat Cancer, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 800–810, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-0085-8 . [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35122049. 15

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.